G&A Win: Modesto PD to Remove a Letter of Reprimand from Officer’s Personnel File

posted on February 23rd, 2010 by John McCaslin

The Stanislaus County Superior Court has granted the Petition for Writ of Mandate filed by Goyette & Associates, Inc. on behalf of a Modesto Police Officer. The Writ of Mandate will direct the City of Modesto and Modesto Police Department to remove a letter of reprimand and related documents from the Officer’s personnel file as a result of the Modesto Police Department’s failure to comply with statutory time limits for imposing disciplinary action on the officer.

The Petition was based on Government Code Section 3304 (f) which requires that a public agency notify an officer of disciplinary action within 30 days of its decision to impose the discipline. In this case, the Modesto Police Department issued the officer a preliminary notice of intent to impose discipline, and then waited more than 5 months before taking the action and notifying the officer. Counsel for the City of Modesto opposed the Petition on various procedural and substantive grounds.

The Court initially issued a tentative ruling on February 4, 2010 denying the Petition on various grounds, including that Subsection (f) does not provide a remedy for a violation of the 30-day time period. Goyette & Associates attorney John McCaslin requested a hearing on the tentative ruling, and the Court heard arguments from counsel for both parties. At the conclusion of oral arguments, the judge took the matter under submission, but indicated that he was inclined to change his initial ruling based on the arguments. On February 10, 2010, the Court issued a Minute Order reversing the tentative ruling and granting the Petition.

Sac Bee Article: Roseville Sexual Harassment Suit

posted on February 23rd, 2010 by Jennifer Coalson-Perez

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/02/23/2557252/roseville-officers-allege-harassment.html

Roseville Sexual Harassment of Gay Officers Videos

posted on February 22nd, 2010 by Jennifer Coalson-Perez

Please visit this link for CBS’s coverage of Goyette & Associates highly publicized Roseville Sexual Orientaion Lawsuit http://cbs13.com/local/roseville.officers.discrimination.2.1507061.html 

or this link of Fox 40’s report http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-news-rosevillepolicegays,0,5772405.story.

Roseville Sexual Harassment Suit Filed, Press Bonanza 3 Hours Later

posted on February 19th, 2010 by Jennifer Coalson-Perez

If you haven’t heard of the law suit Goyette & Associates filed regarding the sexual harassment and sexual orientation discrimination case against the City of Roseville yet, you certainly will in the coming weeks and months. This is one of those cases that is watched with hawk-vision by the press from the second it is filed to momnet it is concluded. G&A’s Lead Civil Litigation Attorney Joy Rosenquist  filed the suit at 11:00 am yesterday morning. By 2:00pm the Press Tribune had posted this along with a heated debate in the comment section….click here to read the comments

 From the Press Tribune:

 Suit: Roseville Police created hostile environment for gays

  By Jon Brines Press Tribune Correspondent

A lawsuit filed Thursday alleges the Roseville Police Department fostered a hostile work environment that targeted gay officers and those perceived as gay.

Two current and one former Roseville police officers filed the civil rights lawsuit seeking unspecified monetary damages from the city and the police department.

 Plaintiffs in the suit, Roseville Police Department Investigations Supervisor Sgt. Darin DeFreece, Officer Ken Marler and former narcotics detective Michael Lackl, argue that police management created the hostile work environment by allowing ongoing sexually discriminatory harassment. 

The lawsuit alleges Roseville Police Chief Mike Blair failed to stop and in some instances retaliated against those reporting harassment claims. It names Blair, Roseville Police Department Sgt. Kelby Newton and former City Manager Craig Robinson for not turning the department around after claims first surfaced in 2007.

The lawsuit was filed in Placer County Superior Court in Roseville.

The city and Roseville Police Department declined to comment Thursday because they had not yet seen the lawsuit

For up to date info on the Roseville sexual arassment case filed by G&A, stay tuned to our blog or start following goyetteandassoc on Twitter. Also tune into to KFBK 1530 for an interview with Joy Rosenquist and Darin DeFreece later today… we’ll Tweet to let you know when…

Continued G&A Press on Fort Bragg Detective Defamation Suit

posted on February 16th, 2010 by Jennifer Coalson-Perez

Donald “Rick” Miele’s suit alleges two counts of defamation and one count of defamation to prevent future employment, a violation of Labor Code 1050. To read more about how G&A lead Civil Litigation Attorney Joy Rosenquist is handling this suit,  click here…http://www.advocate-news.com/search/ci_14405983?IADID=Search-www.advocate-news.com-www.advocate-news.com

What Is Going On In The Legal World And How It Affects You

posted on February 5th, 2010 by Jennifer Coalson-Perez

Goyette & Associatiates Ezine 2-10

In This Issue:

  • What Paul and the G&A Team are up to:  Tons of growth that directly benefits you and your organization!
  • Featured Article:  Citizens United Case Impact on Your Organization
  • What to Watch Out For: New Legislation coming down the pipes
  • Weigh In On This One: What do you think about the new helmet law for kids on the slopes

G&A Press on Fort Bragg Detective Defamation Suit

posted on February 4th, 2010 by Jennifer Coalson-Perez

Goyette & Associates Lead Civil Litigation Attorney, Joy C. Rosenquist  is sited in the Fort Bragg Advocate News, to read the article in detail, clieck here: Fort Bragg Advocate News 2-4-10

Butte County Court rejects Demurrer to CPOA’s Petition for Writ of Mandate

posted on February 3rd, 2010 by John McCaslin

On January 28, 2010, the Butte County Superior Court issued its tentative ruling overruling the City of Chico’s Demurrer to the Petition for Writ of Mandate filed by Goyette & Associates, Inc. on behalf of the Chico Police Officers Association (CPOA) to compel the City of Chico to comply with the meet and confer requirements of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA).

In 2009, the City of Chico unilaterally adopted a change to the job description for the position of Police Sergeant with the Chico Police Department. This change had a negative and immediate effect on current Chico Police Officers, and the CPOA attempted to meet and confer with the City about their concerns. The City refused to meet and confer with CPOA as required under the MMBA, and eventually CPOA was forced to resort to the Court to compel the City to comply with its statutory obligation, filing a Petition for Writ of Mandate under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085.

In response to the Petition, the City of Chico filed a demurrer to challenge the legal sufficiency of the arguments made in the Petition. The demurrer and Petition were calendared for a hearing date on January 29, 2010, but the day before the hearing, the Court issues its ruling rejecting the Demurrer which had been opposed by Goyette & Associate’s Attorney, John McCaslin. The Court gave the City 20 days to answer the Petition, and will set a further hearing to rule on the Petition.

A RN Guardian Member’s Testimonial About BRN Investigation Tactics

posted on February 3rd, 2010 by Jennifer Coalson-Perez

I don’t remember looking for anything exactly, but was surfing the web and came across a slide show regarding RN license protection. One of the main points it made was that the state regulatory boards for Nursing often prefer nurses to not have professional legal representation when dealing with them. The slide show went on to say that when a nurse has been reported to their states Nursing Regulatory Board, it is usually because some sort of error or perceived error was made by the nurse under investigation and that nurses, by their nature, are honest and will admit they committed an error and feel that since they are being honest they do not need to have any legal representation. According to the author, that is the first mistake they make, because they then are at the mercy of the regulatory board and have to abide by whatever conditions or punishments are meted out in order to retain their license and livelihood. Nurses are nurses, not lawyers  and not trained or experienced in the laws pertaining to them to the degree an attorney is and just as attorneys do not provide bedside nursing care, a nurse is handicapping themselves if they have the ability to have legal representation when appearing before the Regulatory Board and do not do so.

Shortly after reading this I came across another website for RN Guardian and spent some time there reading it. It was addressing the exact point that the slide show had made. That for license protection legal professionals should be used. I found the idea of it and low cost of it a “No Brainer”, and signed up immediately.

If you have malpractice insurance, there is sometimes a license defense part of it, but it is usually only reimbursable with a financial limit that could run out very quickly. To me the idea of having legal representation for a low cost is one less thing to have in the back of my mind when at work.

In late 2008, I was contacted by an investigator , on behalf of the Board of Registered Nursing, who informed me that I was being investigated for an incident that had occurred at work almost a year prior and wanted me to sign a release of my personnel file for my employer  so she could review it.  When I asked what the incident was, I was told that she could not tell me any other information but want to set up a meeting to interview me regarding it.  I responded by asking her to send me something in writing regarding this and that until I talked to my legal representation I would not be able to meet with her. She then set a time to call me back after I had spoken with RN Guardian. Thank goodness I did, because I was feeling like one of the nurses mentioned in the slideshow I had found on the web. I was an honest person and had nothing to hide, so what could be the harm in meeting with her and responding to any questions she had.

Nursing is my profession and livelihood, and I knew that anything that could jeopardize that could be a major problem since so much of my life, mortgage, car payment, bills, gas, etc. depended on that income. I immediately called RN Guardian and spoke with one of the staff attorneys who advised me to decline the invitation to meet with the investigator and to not sign the release of my personnel file. He went on to mention that often, the decision of what the Board is going to do is going to happen anyway and that Nurses are often in a better position to appeal any decision rather than to meet with an experienced investigator who might get the nurse to offer to much information and use it against them later. He then told me to let the investigator know that if she had any further questions they could be directed to RN Guardian. What a stress relief!

When I spoke late with the investigator and told her of my decision to decline the interview, she told me that it was simply an interview to get my side of the story, I declined anyway.

It is now 2010. To date, I have not heard whether or not the investigation is still pending or if the matter was resolved. I was never formally informed by the Board of Registered Nursing  and have been working in the Nursing field ever since the “incident”, whatever it was, and continue to work as a Registered Nurse. I will admit it is stressful to not know what is happening, but it would have been much,  much more stressful to have gone through this alone, without the legal representation that RN Guardian has provided for me and continues to provide for me.

Greg, R.N.

California Correctional Supervisors Organization Victories

posted on January 14th, 2010 by Jennifer Coalson-Perez

CCSO Keynote Victories and Summaries – a sampling from Goyette and Associates:

 In a recent Southern California victory a CDCR Captain was served with a notice of adverse action that included a 6 month reduction in salary and the notice remaining in his file for 36 months.A pre-hearing settlement conference was held in Los Angeles and the Department stubbornly refused to compromise. On the advice of counsel a hearing was set. A three day evidentiary hearing was set for the early fall of 2009. On the eve of hearing, literally the day before the hearing was supposed to start, the Department withdrew the action entirely. “The Departments withdrawal is an example of the opportunities that hard negotiation can create”, says Lauro Paredes, G&A attorney. The Captain’s back pay was reinstated and no record of the allegations will be recorded anywhere in his file.

 

A Lieutenant employed at CSP Solano was terminated from his position after 12 years of stellar service. Once referred to as the CDCR’s “Golden Boy” he suddenly found himself the focus of a politically driven nightmare which ultimately cost him his job. In an effort to validate his termination, the department conglomerated multiple alleged acts of misconduct spanning nearly a year of time and threw it all at the wall hoping something would stick. A full evidentiary appeal was conducted, during which the Lieutenant was represented by Dan Thompson of Goyette and Associates. The department’s key witness appeared to not only be unreliable but ultimately established themselves as downright dishonest. Judge Cote ruled in the CCSO member’s favor, finding none of the serious allegations (i.e. dishonesty, willful disobedience, code of silence and insubordination) to be valid. The only allegations sustained were for a minor dress code violation and comment made to a correctional officer who was being disrespectful to authority. The Lieutenant was reinstated to his former position and was awarded all back pay and benefits along with 7% interest. While the fight was long and hard, the victory was sweet.

In yet another grand display of “shoot first and ask (the right) questions later” the CDCR terminated a Lieutenant from Avenal State Prison for what amounted to little more than a simple oversight. After 17 years of unblemished service, this dedicated public servant found himself kicked to the curb and his career over. The facts surrounding the case were simple, he had served as a Senior Hearing Officer for a serious rules violation hearing for one of the inmates at Avenal. When the Lieutenant later completed his report, he was interrupted and inadvertently forgot to note that the witnesses testimony had been stipulated to rather than the witness actually being present. As a result, the department jumped to conclusions and accused the Lieutenant of intentionally falsifying the witnesses testimony in order to carry out some assumed personal vendetta against the inmate. What the department astonishingly failed to do was to speak to the witness and ask her if she had in fact provided her testimony to the Lieutenant. Among the charges were insubordination, willful disobedience, dishonesty, inexcusable neglect of duty, inefficiency and numerous other departmental policies. At the appeal hearing with State Personnel Board Administrative Law Judge Pipkin, the Lieutenant was represented by Dan Thompson of Goyette and Associates. At the hearing, it quickly became apparent that the Lieutenant had done none of what the Department was accusing him of. In the end, Judge Pipkin ruled he was not guilty of any of the serious allegations against him (i.e. dishonesty, willful disobedience or insubordination) and found rather that he had been merely neglectful in not reviewing his report more accurately. As a result, he was reinstated to his position as Lieutenant and awarded all back pay, benefits and 7% interest. This was yet another example of how poorly CDCR conducts investigations often resulting in tragic consequences to its employees.